Proceedings of the Special Senate Committee on the
Anti-terrorism Act
Issue 6 - Evidence
OTTAWA, Monday, June 4, 2007
The Special Senate Committee on the Anti-terrorism Act, to which was referred Bill C-12, to provide for emergency management and to amend and repeal certain acts, met this day at 1:05 p.m. to give consideration to the bill.
Senator David P. Smith (Chairman) in the chair.
[English]
The Chairman: Honourable senators, we will start our meeting by hearing from Rennie Marcoux of the Privy Council Office and from Public Safety Canada, Scott Broughton.
We were to have officials from the Canadian council of emergency measures organizations, which includes all of the provincial and territorial organizations, but they opted not to appear because not one of them felt they could speak for all the others. At the same time, it is kind of like that Serge Ménard dialogue from when it was in committee in the other place. My sense is they are certainly aware. None of them have come here, yet they were specifically invited to appear. Their president is Andrew Lathem, who is in charge of Nova Scotia. We did what we could have done, by inviting them. They opted not to appear and that is fine. We will hear from the two witnesses we have today.
We will then hear a brief explanation of the exchange we had with the FCM on whether or not to have a preamble. I think it is pretty clear we will not. We will make it clear as to why. We can then do clause-by-clause consideration of the bill.
We just received a letter from Minister Stockwell Day who is very keen that we move along and get this matter dealt with before the recess. I think there is a good chance we can do that today.
Welcome witnesses, and thank you for coming here today. Please proceed
Rennie Marcoux, Assistant Secretary to the cabinet, Security and Intelligence, Privy Council Office: Good afternoon and thank you for inviting me to speak with you today. I am the Assistant Secretary to the cabinet within the Privy Council Office. I was appointed to the position six months ago.
I have with me Mr. Scott Broughton, Senior Assistant Deputy Minister of Public Safety Canada. We work together closely on a number of files, including Emergency Management. As such, I thought his presence here today would be complementary to our discussions.
[Translation]
I understand that you had a briefing by Public Safety officials on Bill C-12, the Emergency Management Act, and that you now wish to understand the role of the Privy Council Office in the management of emergencies as well as the link between the Privy Council Office and this bill.
I hope that I will be able to shed some light on these issues and perhaps answer other questions as well if you have any. First of all, let me explain briefly the context of the Security and Intelligence Secretariat.
[English]
On a day-to-day basis and in a crisis situation, the key role of the Security and Intelligence Secretariat is to provide support and advice to the National Security Advisor, to whom I report, the Clerk of the Privy Council, the Prime Minister, and cabinet or cabinet committees as appropriate.
In support of these roles, the secretariat has dedicated personnel with operational and strategic knowledge and responsibilities for relevant files, such as terrorism, policing, intelligence, transportation security and emergency management. These personnel would also be available to provide onsite Privy Council Office liaison support to the Government Operation Centre during a crisis.
Within this context, there are three ways in which PCO is engaged in Canada's emergency management system: first, the core and PCO-wide challenge function; second, the Privy Council Office's participation and facilitation of emergency management information and decision making; and third, how the Privy Council Office's role would support the application of Bill C-12.
A core role for all Privy Council secretariats is to provide the non-partisan challenge function to specific policy proposals developed by departments and agencies in response to the broad policy direction provided by the Government of Canada.
The PCO challenge function covers many topics, such as ensuring that the policy proposal is aligned with government goals; that it has symmetry with other government proposals and initiatives; that it recognizes and accounts for existing programs; that it considers international trends; and, in conjunction with our two sister central agencies — the Department of Finance and Treasury Board — ensures that the proposal is fiscally responsible.
[Translation]
Second, it has to be noted that it is through its input at the Executive Committee and Executive Subcommittee on National Security and Emergency Management that the Privy Council Office can play an active role in the information and decision-making processes in the area of emergency management.
For example, the National Security Advisor to the Prime Minister regularly meets with various deputy ministers and organization heads to discuss a wide variety of issues in the area of national security and emergencies. In this undertaking, she is supported by the Deputy Minister of Public Safety. In the event of a security crisis or national emergency, this group of deputy ministers would meet and would advise the Prime Minister and the cabinet.
[English]
On an operational and strategic level, the Privy Council Office is also engaged in the Assistant Deputy Minister's emergency management committee and its various subcommittees. In fact, I co-chair the ADM emergency management committee with Mr. Broughton.
This committee brings together assistant deputy ministers from across government to provide senior management leadership regarding emergency management for the Government of Canada.
This committee meets monthly during non-emergency times to consider the Government of Canada emergency management processes and readiness for an emergency. During emergencies, the committee or subcommittees meet as required to provide support, coordination and advice to lead departments and agencies managing the emergency.
As co-chairs of this committee, Mr. Broughton and I both recognize that in the context of emergency management, effective coordination is achieved as much by cooperation as by rules. Information-sharing and trusted relations are the foundations of cooperation. In other words, it is crucial that relationships among emergency management stakeholders are well established before an event occurs and that we are not trying to build them during an event.
These are key drivers in shaping the role and intent of this committee. Privy Council Office representatives also participate in subcommittees struck in response to emerging or current situations. These committees are a key vehicle for Privy Council Office engagement in the emergency management system.
Of course, the backdrop to any country's emergency management system is the strength of its legislative basis. In Canada, as you all know, the government is currently striving to strengthen its legislative base with the introduction of Bill C-12, the emergency management bill. The provisions in Bill C-12 address some key requirements needed to ensure effective federal-level emergency management leadership and accountability.
For example, Bill C-12 reflects the new and changing threat and risk environment; ensures that we know who is in charge of federal coordination in an emergency — namely, the Minister of Public Safety; provides the authority for the Minister of Public Safety to set emergency preparedness standards for all government departments; clarifies the emergency management role and responsibilities of all federal ministers; and provides for greater accountability as to how an emergency is handled.
[Translation]
If Bill C-13 was adopted and received Royal Assent, the Privy Council Office would be tasked with making sure that the Minister of Public Safety and his department are able to assume the responsibilities given to them by the act and that all ministers are cooperating in order to fulfill their commitments under the legislation.
Thus, because the Privy Council Office takes part in many ways and on several levels in the management of emergencies, it is well-positioned to assess to what degree the provisions of Bill C-12 are appropriate.
I hope that my brief description of the role of the Privy Council Office in the management of emergencies in Canada, of its challenge function in this regard and its role in the direction and coordination of executive committees have enabled you to obtain the answers that you were seeking.
[English]
Scott Broughton, Acting Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Emergency Management and National Security, Public Safety Canada: I had not planned any remarks. We are both prepared to answer questions.
The Chairman: I will lead off with one question on constitutional niceties.
When this matter was before the House of Commons, there was an exchange involving Serge Ménard from the Bloc. He did not want any municipalities in the room and wanted to deal only with the provinces because municipalities are constitutional creatures of the provinces.
When the Federation of Canadian Municipalities was here, one of their points was that they wanted more recognition of the role they play in emergencies. Of course, clause 4 of the bill reads:
The Minister's responsibilities under section 3 include:
(f) coordinating the activities of government institutions relating to emergency management with those of the provinces — and supporting the emergency management activities of the provinces — and through the provinces, those of local authorities.
They use the phrase "local authorities,'' which certainly covers municipalities.
Some of the municipal people — and perhaps it is an ego thing — preferred that phrase. I suspect if you had a big flood in Winnipeg and the federal government wanted to talk to the mayor of Winnipeg and write a big cheque, it would not be a problem. Who knows? Recipients are usually happy to accept a cheque.
In terms of the constitutional niceties, this is not a substantive issue but one in which the municipalities feel they want to be in the room more often and have some recognition.
In the case of very large municipalities such as Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver, which are bigger than some provinces, tell me how you finesse these constitutional niceties in a way that still gets the job done and manages things so that hopefully people are comfortable.
Mr. Broughton: Mr. Latham, the gentleman you referred to earlier, and I co-chair a committee of senior officials for emergency management for the federal-provincial-territorial group. Most of what we do is done through an FPT forum: The policy work, the preparatory work we do throughout the government is actually done at that forum. There are a significant number of programs that the federal government has through Public Safety Canada and other places where we provide direct financial assistance to first responders in municipalities.
The way we work it, or "finesse'' it as you said, senator, is to ensure that all of this work is done in consultation with our provincial and territorial colleagues. Even though we have programs where we work directly with the municipalities, we do all kinds of training at our college out on Heron Road, and it involves first responders, police chiefs, fire chiefs, paramedics. Everyone in the provincial and territorial setting is aware of those circumstances and the financial funding programs we have. Generally, we try to develop those programs in consultation with the provinces and territories so they know what is going on and are part of it.
With respect to financial assistance, the vast majority of the financial assistance the federal government provides to our programming, whether on an upfront basis or after-the-fact basis, is usually done through the provinces and territories because they are responsible to manage the finances of the province. Even where there are arrangements for local or regional events that involve municipalities or cities, the financial assistance programs, the big ones such as the disaster financial arrangement and so on, tend to work through the provinces and territories.
Occasionally, we will have discussions and debates. However, the vast majority of the time our provincial and territorial colleagues are aware of and help us to work on and evolve the policies and the programs we do.
The Chairman: Do you feel these constitutional niceties — and I chose that phrase because it describes the issue — are being managed in a way that more or less work?
Mr. Broughton: In my opinion they do work well, yes. We work with municipalities. We also work with many volunteer organizations that the provinces and territories are interested in. Collectively, if we are all at the table, I am not aware that we have any substantial problems in that regard. It seems to work.
The Chairman: Do the municipalities come to the table or do the provinces represent them?
Mr. Broughton: Most of the work we do is through the provinces and territories but there are all kinds of meetings, discussions and consultations that involve municipalities directly. The training we do at our emergency college out on Heron Road involves first responders from cities, small communities and regions, so they are there in that sense.
The Chairman: I personally am not hung up about it but I know that some people are a bit.
Senator Day: I am not entirely clear in my mind what will happen within the machinery of government, assuming this bill becomes law. Will part of the secretariat from the Privy Council Office move over to Public Safety Canada? Do you anticipate a movement of personnel? Is this transferring some of the responsibilities of the secretariat, Ms. Marcoux, to Public Safety Canada?
Ms. Marcoux: No, not at all. In fact, the role of the secretariat will remain the same. The secretariat supports the Prime Minister and cabinet in their roles and responsibilities.
If Bill C-12 becomes law, there would be no machinery changes at all in that sense, nor structural changes.
Senator Day: Mr. Broughton, do you anticipate a buildup in this new and expanded area of responsibility within your ministry?
Mr. Broughton: I do not think I could say as a direct result of the bill. There are policies and programs that the government will seek through the budgetary process that will involve the things we want to do in emergency management. By virtue of passing the bill directly, I am not aware of it creating substantial new structures.
Senator Day: Will matters continue operating in terms of emergency management?
Mr. Broughton: I believe so, but in terms of having the bill it obviously clarifies the role of the Minister of Public Safety and other ministers. It is an impetus for people to make sure they understand their roles and responsibilities. The majority of the machinery that is in place has been built, is being built and will continue to be built.
Senator Day: You say it clarifies the role; however, the role is already being performed. It is a function that is already happening. Is this coming along to clarify and put into law what has been happening in any event?
Mr. Broughton: In the recent past I would believe that to be the case, yes.
Ms. Marcoux: I want to add, the new bill in a way complements the responsibilities that the Ministry of Public Safety already has under the Public Safety Act, which is the lead for public safety within Canada. That act would complement his responsibilities.
Senator Day: I am trying to understand why we need this legislation. Can either of you tell us why it is desirable to change the name to emergency management from emergency preparedness?
Mr. Broughton: Essentially the machinery is in place, the minister is in place, and most of what we want to do is in place. This bill is a modern reflection of things that happen within government and it clearly lays out the roles and responsibilities of our minister and other ministers within the federal system.
The lack of the bill would not mean we have to stop things, but I think it makes it abundantly clear to everyone concerned what exactly is expected by our minister and by others within the federal system as a whole.
Senator Day: Do you have anything to add to that, Ms. Marcoux?
Ms. Marcoux: That is exactly what I was going to say.
Senator Day: The fact that you are operating as co-chairs in this committee is an indication that both the ministry, Mr. Stockwell Day's ministry now, Public Safety, and the Privy Council Office, have equally important roles in terms of an emergency and emergency preparedness.
Mr. Broughton: Equally important is probably the way to describe it. Public Safety has more of an operational role in terms of the nature of our work and the existence of government operations centres, the connections that we would have with the provinces and territories, with other departments and their emergency operations centres, and the people who would be concerned in an emergency situation. Ours has the operational flavour to it. We are the ones expected to organize things, orchestrate things and ensure people have the information they need.
PCO's role is at the decision-making end. From an official's point of view, at that point in time when we believe we need the government to be aware of what is going on and, more important, to be taking decisions with respect to the use of resources or policies, that would be the role that PCO would play. They are the interface with cabinet and the Prime Minister.
Ours is the operational role. We would pass on to PCO and others the nature of the problem and where decision making is required by the Government of Canada PCO carries out that function.
Senator Day: Public Safety Canada has the ongoing role in a non-emergency time in ensuring all the departments and ministries meet standards set from time to time and that plans are in place.
Mr. Broughton: Absolutely correct.
Senator Day: That part I understand. I want to talk about an emergency that is occurring. As I understand the legislation, Public Safety Canada initially takes charge to ensure that the ministry that should take control does so. Is that correct?
Mr. Broughton: Yes.
Senator Day: During that same time frame, when we are determining which ministry should take the lead and you will continue to monitor, obviously, public safety, what is PCO doing at this time?
Ms. Marcoux: We would be there to support Public Safety Canada to ensure that the decisions required to be made, for example, even identifying a lead minister, would be done. We would ensure that if decisions need to be brought up to either the level of deputy ministers or even to a certain group of ministers, that would happen.
I would advise the National Security Advisor and/or the Clerk of the Privy Council or even the Prime Minister to recommend that ministers need to meet to either be briefed on a situation or take certain decisions. If the government needs to make a public statement we work to prepare that statement and identify a lead minister.
Senator Day: If all of that is being done by PCO, why are we moving a piece of this off into Public Safety? Why would Privy Council Office not be doing all of this coordination? The ultimate command and control will be by the ministry or the department responsible. It is all of this preliminary work, and you are saying they will work most of it through you and you will coordinate. Why do we need to divide that? Why would the secretariat within Privy Council Office that has been traditionally dealing with those kinds of things not continue to do it?
Ms. Marcoux: In most instances you need a lead minister dealing with an issue. We are a small secretariat. I have about 43 employees, so we would not be able to fulfill that role. Our principal role is to advise the Prime Minister and cabinet, based on the leadership of a lead minister or ministers in certain instances.
Senator Day: I am talking about this front end; when the emergency has just happened, before we get the lead ministry. The way the bill is devised, Public Safety initially takes control, but they work through the Privy Council Office, is what you have just told me.
Mr. Broughton: I do not think there is any difference in terms of PCO's role in an emergency or any other case. The Privy Council Office is the bureaucracy that supports the Prime Minister and cabinet. It does not matter whether it is an emergency or normal business going through government at any point in time. In an operational sense, Public Safety Canada's role is a broader one across the whole of government to ensure that everyone is where he or she needs to be in terms of what is happening before, during and after a crisis. There is no duplication or splitting. The role for PCO, even in an emergency, is similar to what they would do in any kind of business where they are to support the cabinet and Prime Minister.
Senator Fairbairn: I have a long memory going back to when the organization within the PCO was just being started way back in the 1970s, and it has gone a long way since then.
I am looking at clause 5 on page 4 of the bill. It says:
In consultation with the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Minister may develop joint emergency management plans with the relevant United States' authorities and in, accordance with those plans, coordinate Canada's response to emergencies in the United States and provide assistance in response to those emergencies.
Could you take us through that? The reason it jumped out at me was the agitation that came out of the United States in the last few days about the possibility of an attack on JFK airport.
Are you very much in the centre of helping with coordination during such an incident? Are you contacted quickly, as an ally, close partner and neighbour that would want to know about that kind of thing? In a sense, whether it happens or not is irrelevant. It is a question of, if it should happen, are we in a position to be at the ready and do anything that we can?
Ms. Marcoux: Were you asking specifically if we had been contacted by American authorities and given a heads up about this incident?
Senator Fairbairn: Now that you have mentioned it, I will ask that question as well. I would like to know if we were made aware that there was something out there, rightly or wrongly. There would be many connecting links along the way, but is your secretariat very much at the centre when events like that comes up, hoax or not? If something should happen — like in New York — are you quickly made aware of the incident and the connections that need to be made between the two countries?
Ms. Marcoux: Those would be exactly the same questions we would ask ourselves. When I heard it on the news on Saturday or Sunday, I called my colleagues, both within CSIS and Transport Canada, to ask them those specific questions and for any further information that they may have. The story is still fairly new, so I do not have a lot of details at the moment. That is what I did in that instance.
Senator Fairbairn: Happily that turned out not to be the case, but when it first came on the horizon, presumably there would be connection with people in other departments such as Foreign Affairs and DND who may also have their relevant counterparts in the United States.
Ms. Marcoux: Yes, our people communicate with them on a regular basis.
Senator Fairbairn: At some point that communication would come to you, would it?
Ms. Marcoux: Yes. For example, I could call a meeting of my assistant deputy minister counterparts. If the situation escalates, we would have those mechanisms to ensure that we could get the government's response in order, and brief others as we need to.
Senator Fairbairn: The Americans are so close to us that it would be astounding if we did not have that connection, but what about other colleagues of ours? This committee went to London a couple of years ago. It was in the fall; a few short months after the big explosion in their subway. One of the most interesting parts of our visit — and I think Senator Andreychuk would agree with me — was with the London police who were at the very centre of the crisis. They have an extraordinary network that instantly goes into terror alert. By the time we walked out of that building we were all shaken by it all, because had that network not been there it would have meant many more people would have been killed.
When things are happening in another country not as close to us as the United States, are we still given quick notice even though we are an ocean apart? You never know where other connections lie and they could easily have been in Canada somewhere.
Ms. Marcoux: From my previous experience in the Canadian Security and Intelligence Service, in certain instances CSIS would get advance notice of certain things happening, either in the U.K. or other countries. In some cases it may be not because arrests are imminent and it is not appropriate to be given a heads up on something very sensitive that is happening. Relationships between Canadian law enforcement and public safety agencies with their U.K. and U.S. counterparts and others, are very good. There is an ongoing dialogue happening daily, both with liaison officers abroad or their liaison officers here or headquarters to headquarters. I think I could safely say that we would normally get an advance warning.
Senator Fairbairn: Thank you very much. It is important for people in the country to understand that with the technology that we have today we can get that information quickly. There is always the other fear that the type of event occurring in the other country could be connected to something here at home. It is very helpful to have that information.
Ms. Marcoux: Of course, one of the first things that we would want to know is if there is a Canadian connection to something happening abroad, so we would automatically ensure that we could answer that question for senior officials or ministers or people performing ongoing investigations.
[Translation]
Senator Nolin: I am sure that if we had put the same questions to your American colleagues a few years ago, they would have given us the same answers that you have given today, namely that minor legislative amendments had to be made but that, generally speaking, you are keeping a watchful eye on us.
Since then, there was the hurricane Katrina and we have realized that all the nice rhetoric, prevention policies and great public policies have all but disappeared. So much so that today, Americans are anticipating with trepidation the next hurricane season and they are already predicting that they will be hit by five major hurricanes. As well, they are already anticipating the emergency measures that they will have to put in place.
Ms. Marcoux: You are absolutely right.
Senator Nolin: In spite of all the legislative measures that you are asking us to approve and all the powers that we are agreeing to grant the minister, and in spite of the reservations that I have expressed on several occasions about the efficiency of a system with ministers that are responsible for their department and a minister that is charged with this responsibility, how can you reassure us about this?
How can you reassure us that a fiasco such as what happened when hurricane Katrina struck could not happen here in Canada? What lessons have we learned from this American fiasco?
Ms. Marcoux: It would be quite unwise for me to tell you that we are prepared for all eventualities, that we are ready to face any crisis or emergency.
If I rely on the experience of the deputy minister, who is the National Security Advisor, she always says that we can never have a guarantee that we are prepared for all eventualities, but we must always question ourselves about this and we must always place in its context the answer to this question.
We must continuously review the emergency measures, the preparedness, the plans; ensure that we know where our personnel is located, how we can contact the key actors; make sure that all emergency initiatives are reviewed regularly and continuously, to be able to identify any vulnerabilities.
Senator Nolin: The bill obviously contains an emergency prevention component and we are being asked to approve in this bill the powers allowing the Minister of Public Safety to put in place a series of measures in order for us to be able to manage the situation if and when an emergency occurs. It will be the minister's responsibility; I believe that the bill is sufficiently specific in this regard and, hopefully, you have attempted to anticipate all possibilities.
Paragraph 4(1)(m) of the bill states:
The minister's responsibilities include establishing policies and programs respecting emergency management.
Does that mean that the minister will have the authority to establish policies that will be applicable to others, outside of federal institutions?
Ms. Marcoux: I will ask Mr. Broughton to answer this. I have the feeling that it applies only at the federal level, but I do not want to mislead you.
[English]
Mr. Broughton: The context of what is in the act is with respect to the federal government. The majority of our responsibility as is laid out would be with our colleagues across the federal system. Clearly, other sections involve us working with provinces and territories as well. The policies and programs that are referred to here would be focused on the federal government. Our department has a great deal of responsibility with respect to working with provinces, territories, when to respond, how to respond, and how to work with them. These references are specifically for the federal government, as I understand them.
Senator Nolin: When I was reading paragraph 4(1)(a), I thought that, too. That is clearly intended to be focused on federal agency institutions. However, when I read paragraph 4(1)(m), definitely there is redundancy or you want to do more than give the minister the authority to structure those principles, organize those programs and establish the principles that would cover more than the federal institutions. That is why I am asking the questions.
What is the purpose of paragraph 4(1)(m)?
Mr. Broughton: We work not only with the provinces and territories but also with the private sector. The responsibility of the minister on behalf of the federal government is to ensure, according to that clause and others that the policies and programs respecting emergency management have been worked out and are in place. Most of it is done in a collegial fashion, but the Minister of Public Safety provides the leadership with respect to the items that are referred to in paragraph 4(1)(m). The major responsibility is on the federal side. Clearly, we have a role of leadership with provinces, territories and the private sector as well.
[Translation]
Senator Nolin: I presume that Ms. Bloodworth must be familiar with this file since this has been raised at the table with permanent representatives of NATO countries.
Concerning what has happened recently in Estonia, that is the cyber attack, what mechanisms are in place in Canada to avoid such a situation from happening here?
Also, last weekend, my colleagues and myself have received more than 1,000 emails from two persons. Notwithstanding the significance of their concerns, it still remains that two persons have sent 1,000 emails to my colleagues and myself, which shows that we are at the mercy of such abusers.
I respect the fact that people have opinions and want to defend them. That being said, what has happened in Estonia was an invasion that endangered the banking system and the ATM network of the country, not to speak of the nerves of Estonian parliamentarians. Have we put in place in Canada some mechanisms in order to prevent this kind of situation?
Ms. Marcoux: I will let Mr. Broughton expand on this, but I understand that a policy is being developed concerning the protection of the IT infrastructure. Within the Government Operations Center, there is even a unit that is charged with identifying and managing any attack against this IT infrastructure.
[English]
Mr. Broughton: Inside the Government Operations Centre, we have that unit where people are keeping their eyes on what is happening. There is a cyber secretariat inside Public Safety Canada. Our deputy minister will be meeting with 10 or 15 significant players in the private sector to talk about the approaches that we can take around cyber security issues. First, we are working at it at both ends, inside the government with the centre that sits in the government operations centre. Our intelligence agencies are trying to keep an eye on things as well. Second, we are working more closely with the private sector to figure out how we can make that security system better.
Senator Nolin: I always thought that the Estonian IT sector was on the cutting-edge of technology. Now I wonder if those experts that you are meeting with every month, or regularly, have the tools to face that kind of emergency. I hope, at least legislatively, you have enough authority to ensure that the toolbox is sufficiently full to give you those tools. We do not want to see that happen in Canada.
Senator Andreychuk: PCO is supposed to draw everything together and be the first alert to the Prime Minister's Office should anything occur. What do you do on a daily basis? How do you form a judgment? Part of the problem leading up to 9/11, but also to many other attacks, was the inability to connect the dots. The weakness in every system was that each system had some information but had not shared it to draw it together with other systems. I understand that PCO is to draw all of the information together. How do you do that on a practical basis? How do you make the evaluation?
Ms. Marcoux: On a day-to-day basis, I would expect the analysts in the secretariat to be in constant touch with their portfolio departments or their areas of responsibility so that they are aware of things that are happening. We get a number of intelligence reports from different sources of information, including a daily brief from the Government Operations Centre, which helps us stay on top of what is happening and what could occur. Based on that information, we would make a judgment call as to whether it has the potential to escalate nationwide, whether there is a public interest issue that we need to deal with and whether ministers need to be apprised. It is a little bit intuitive, but, as I explained previously, it is based on having a number of representatives from the different agencies within the secretariat that have an understanding of these areas and who can make judgment calls and keep on top of what is happening.
Senator Andreychuk: I think you have answered my question, but I want to be reassured. We are all watching the Air India inquiry, the disaster that occurred in the mid-1980s. We have heard that some people had some information and that some people are contradicting statements they made in the past. Certainly, at that time in the mid-1980s, we were not equipped to draw it all together and to speak on behalf of the government in a way that I think we should be able to today. Isolated information is only as good as the person interpreting it for their purposes. A small fact in one hand is perhaps a big fact in someone else's if they have other information.
I want to be assured. The bill is a facilitating bill. It is not changing the direction so much the direction of the act. However, I want to be sure that, on a practical level, not on the legal level, that there is someone drawing the pieces together and not saying that analyst did this and that analyst did that. I want to be reassured that someone sits down each day and says, "Here is the fact situation for the day, and I believe it is horrific and we better do something more,'' or "Yes, it is routine and everyone seems to be doing their job well, so life goes on.'' Is that happening in the PCO? Is that your job?
Ms. Marcoux: No. We have made a great deal of progress since 1985 and more specifically since 9/11. We have the Integrated Threat Assessment Centre within the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, which has the responsibility. It has membership from a number of agencies and government departments that have sources of information. Their responsibility is to bring all of those sources of information together on a given issue and ensure that all the dots are connected and that the government has a common understanding and appreciation of the threat. On a day-to-day basis, government departments feed information into the Government Operations Centre on issues happening in their respective areas. They send this information to alert the system.
Senator Andreychuk: Does the PCO double-check all of the information to ensure that all of the things you have just said are occurring and happening?
Ms. Marcoux: We do that in a number of ways. We have a number of interdepartmental committees or working groups that look at the broad range of national security intelligence issues, activities, initiatives, for example, and all of that is happening in those committees.
Senator Andreychuk: Are you the person who brings all the silos together? Is it PCO that does that?
Ms. Marcoux: Yes. Mr. Broughton shares that responsibility in terms of bringing the portfolio of Public Safety together. In the case of national security and public safety, it is mostly the RCMP and CSIS.
Senator Andreychuk: When a disaster occurs, and it could be a human disaster, a natural disaster or a terrorist threat, the question for a parliamentarian is, "Did we do the right thing within the capability of our system?'' We can then analyze to see if we need more of a system or a different system. To ensure that we are actually doing what we say we are doing, the buck has to stop somewhere, and I want to know where it stops from a double-check and from a crisis intervention point of view. All these parts may be working independently. I want to be sure they are working collectively and that someone is making an overall assessment. Throughout our anti-terrorism study, we were told PCO was supposed to be doing that, and I want to be sure that it is.
Ms. Marcoux: That is why I wanted to co-chair the emergency management committee with Mr. Broughton, so that I could be closely involved in those issues to ensure that all parts of the government are doing exactly what they should be doing.
Senator Andreychuk: Going back to Senator Smith's issue, as I understand, particularly in disasters, the issue of varying jurisdictions has been a problem because it was who is on first, who is on second, who moves, et cetera. It was not a question of payment or being at the table. It was a question that everyone was working from their own perspective to try to help or assist. I thought we had overcome that by protocols and working at signals to determine whether it is a local, provincial, national or international issue. I thought we had worked out all those routines to know where you think it is no longer an issue for just the local authority and someone else has to be brought in. I thought that was all negotiated and set out in protocols. Am I correct?
Mr. Broughton: For the most part, that is the case. The vast majority of emergencies or disaster situations in this country never get past a local or municipal level. All the first responders, the police, fire departments and paramedics handle the vast majority. I do not know the exact percentage. Occasionally, some disasters will drift to the provincial or territorial level such as forest fires, flooding, et cetera. In cases where the province feels it needs assistance, it calls on the federal government. That is a very well understood protocol that exists at all levels of government. The flooding in British Columbia is a prime example where municipalities throughout the province are preparing for things within their own cities. The majority of the orchestration and the preparedness around the potential for flooding in British Columbia is being led by the province of British Columbia, and we are there at the table with them — Public Safety in particular, but also a variety of departments and agencies from the federal government. We would only go in and assist at the request of the provincial government. That protocol, that understanding of how that hierarchy works, is well understood throughout the entire country.
At each point, we also have agreements and understandings as to the difference between when someone thinks they are taking over versus when they are there to help. In the vast majority of cases, the federal government would not take over. We would simply be there to provide the resources and assistance to our provincial and territorial colleagues.
Senator Fairbairn: I should have prefaced my first question by saying that we all acknowledge the history of the British service in these situations. With the Irish question, they have lived with incredible pressures and turbulence for so long that it was natural that, as these dreadful things continued over many years; they would put together bit-by-bit a system that not only deals with the situation as they know it, but also devised a system to stay ahead of the problem.
We did not say much; we listened. It was quite a lesson for us to hear how quickly, when this subway situation occurred, they could snap a system together, get people moving and save lives.
The committee we sit on now really began back in the mid-1980s. I had just become a senator and Senator Bill Kelly from Toronto was the chair of a similar committee. We are now in a different world because 9/11 and other terrorist acts have happened, but at that point we were not there yet.
We were talking about the "what-if.'' This is one of the things the senator was speaking about earlier. What if something happens? We get messaging through technology that we are into it or that it is coming at us. Over all these years of different reports and different suggestions from other people, are we confident that we in Canada are in a position to centre on what is happening and also to help people who are involved in it?
Whenever I think of our trip to London, I think of the subway in Montreal or in Toronto. Do we have systems, as we have been urging for years, between various levels of police organizations, including always at the centre the Royal Canadian Mounted Police?
In this year, are we confident that we are ready to deal with these things when the moment comes through our intelligence circle that something is happening and we are likely to be a part of it? Do we have the response system on the ground that we have been trying to and hoping to get, and governments have been told to get, over the last 20 years?
Mr. Broughton: The answer to the question is yes, in the sense that the protocols and the systems are in place. Intelligence agencies, police agencies and emergency management organizations have the systems, the protocols and the know-how to kick things in when they need to.
The huge amount of success is dependent on the first responders. There has been huge investment in the development of our first responders. This investment has come from the municipal level. Most people would see first responders as the key to success in terms of the training and readiness.
At the end of the day, the success we have with those particular events is dependent upon the people who react according to the systems and protocols. I think experience and lessons learned tell us that sometimes the breakdown is that individuals within the system did not know or forgot. The systems are there that people have to use.
The other challenge is the magnitude and the nature of the event. We do our best as a society to predict the kinds of things that can happen. As we discover every once in a while, either Mother Nature or various individuals throw curves at us.
The systems and protocols and the understanding of who should be on first and who should react when and how, I have a great deal of confidence they exist. They need to be put in place. Success is dependent upon the people using them properly and the capacity of the people. That is what it comes down to.
Ms. Marcoux: In the absence of real emergencies, one of the most important things for government departments to do is to conduct exercises so that we are not making up protocols or figuring out who we should call during the event itself.
Part of Bill C-12 explicitly states that the Department of Public Safety shall develop exercise programs or standards. We support the need to conduct exercises, but also, if there is a real emergency or even a small crisis, it is important to always conduct lessons learned and ensure that those lessons learned are implemented and considered as we develop and plan for any future emergencies.
Senator Fairbairn: That is encouraging. As I was listening to the media, with the event that did not happen in New York, the first thing that came to mind was, what if? What if it were heading here? Are we ready?
These issues also come in under some of the heaviest security we could have, so you do not stand out on street corners with all the details. It is also important that Canadians know that we will not be surprised, that we have at the push of a button a system to save as many and as much of whatever might be the challenge.
I am glad you are saying this here today. It is important for Canadians to hear.
Senator Day: Please turn to clause 11 of this bill. I am contemplating that this committee may move on to clause-by- clause consideration so I am starting to focus specifically on the words as opposed to the policy issues.
The wording that amends the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Act in subsection 4(2) is interesting. Do you have the old wording here so that you can tell us why this amendment is necessary?
Mr. Broughton: I do.
Senator Day: It sort of goes to jurisdictional issues. It talks about the national level. I am at clause 11 on page 7.
"Exercising leadership at the national level'' is an interesting expression, from a constitutional point of view. You are, or somebody is, asking us to replace subsection 2 of section 4 of the old act.
Mr. Broughton: My struggle is that they look very similar. The old one says: "The Minister shall, at the national level, exercise leadership relating to public safety and emergency preparedness.
The new one reads:
The Minister is responsible for exercising leadership at the national level relating to public safety and emergency preparedness.
Senator Day: That is an interesting change of wording. Now I know the old wording.
Ms. Marcoux: I think it makes it explicit that he is responsible for it.
Senator Day: I think the old one made it even more explicit — he "shall.'' Now it reads, he "is.''
Ms. Marcoux: You might want to ask the legislative drafters.
Senator Andreychuk: The minister is responsible for exercising leadership.
Senator Day: The wording is "shall'' in the old one.
Senator Andreychuk: "Shall . . . exercise'' is almost a personal duty.
The Chairman: We heard that the majority of these emergencies are dealt with purely by local authorities, some go up the ladder and are dealt with provincially, and a small number are dealt with federally. If it says "shall'' it almost implies he must do something.
I think the point Senator Andreychuk makes is that if it says he is "responsible'' then he is responsible. If there is something he should be doing then he should be doing it. I can see the nuance in a way that it does not trouble me. It does not imply you have to do something just for the sake of doing it, but you are responsible.
Senator Day: We know what the two wordings were. The other one is wording again. I take you back to proposed section 2 of this act, namely, the definition of emergency management plan. That is the second item defined. It appears on page 2, and it states:
2. "emergency management plan'' means a program, arrangement or other measure
(a) for dealing with an emergency by the civil population; or
(b) for dealing with a civil emergency. . .
In one case it is an emergency and in the other it is a civil emergency. Is the term "civil emergency'' used here? It implies that it is different from an emergency. Maybe it is a more restrictive type of emergency. Is that terminology "civil emergency'' used because it appears in the National Defence Act?
Mr. Broughton: That would be my understanding, but I think I need help from drafters. I am told that is the case.
Senator Day: The wording sort of jumped out at me. I think it calls for an explanation.
The Chairman: It might be a just defence if, for example, a dam broke on the St. Lawrence Seaway.
Mr. Broughton: Yes.
Senator Day: If you read the rest of the act, if it is a non-civil emergency being handled by DND, then the Minister of Public Safety Canada is still involved in it. It is only civil emergencies handled under the national defence act that would be excluded.
[Translation]
Senator Nolin: Section 14 deals with the coming into force of the act. When do you intend to pass an Order-in- Council to proclaim the coming into force of this legislation?
Ms. Marcoux: I cannot give you an answer. That decision belongs to the government and the ministers.
Senator Nolin: I understand that. However, what must be done in order for this legislation to come into force in an efficient way?
Ms. Marcoux: Once it is passed by Parliament, the delay is usually very short. It is done by Order-in-Council. Does that answer your question?
Senator Nolin: I understand what you are saying.
[English]
The Chairman: I think that completes the questions. On behalf of the committee, I thank both of our witnesses for appearing. I think your input has been very helpful and clarified a few things.
We will go to clause-by-clause consideration, but, first, we will have a brief discussion on this preamble issue. We will clear it up one way or the other. If we want to get into it, then we might go into camera. Let us find out if anyone feels that we need to go in camera.
One issue that we will deal with before getting into clause-by-clause consideration, you may recall that the Federation of Canadian Municipalities object because the word "municipal'' was not used. If you go to page 2 and paragraph 4(1)( f), it refers to "through the provinces, those of local authorities.'' I do not think it is that fundamental. If someone wants to make the case for a preamble, I guess we can have a discussion on it.
Our clerk has some information you may find helpful.
Adam Thompson, Clerk of the Committee: Honourable senators, you will recall that the federation made this request and that request was reiterated by way of letter to the chair. Following a discussion with the chair, I undertook to do some research on the procedural implications of adding a preamble. While it is certainly up to the committee to decide how it will proceed, I will read a citation from Marleau and Montpetit. An identical citation is contained in Beauschesne and in Erskine-May on page 657, "If the bill does not contain a preamble, it is not competent for the committee to introduce one.''
Senator Andreychuk: That is bold.
Senator Nolin: No one was trying to be disrespectful to the municipalities or to the local authority structure. As we know, in Quebec — I am sure it is different in other provinces — we have a variety of those local institutions. It is a huge category. I think the act is trying to capture everything. Instead of naming them, they are trying to have a global name such as "local authorities.'' I think it is appropriate and I think municipalities should be recognized as being the major component of those "local authorities.'' Indeed, they are named by their generic name.
Senator Andreychuk: Having been with the mayors in municipalities many years ago, I think they are looking for recognition that they are the front line and that they carry the majority. However, I do not think a preamble in an act is the way to do it. The federal governmental has acknowledged that the first responders are always the local responders and that they carry a heavy burden. We know that. It may be a good negotiation for the mayors and municipalities down the road, but I do not think it needs to be in this bill.
Senator Fairbairn: Are we being told that we cannot do a preamble?
Senator Andreychuk: Even if we wanted to, I am saying we should not.
The Chairman: If you would like it read again we can have it read again, but that is the gist of it.
Senator Day: I do not believe we cannot amend bills before us in any way that we feel appropriate. In any event, I do not intend to suggest we should do it.
The Chairman: Setting aside the precedent issue as to whether or not on the substantive question, I think there is a consensus here. I am not sensing anyone wishes to pursue the preamble concept. Am I correct?
Senator Day: You are correct. I think it is covered well under 4(1)(f).
The Chairman: Can I propose we commence with a clause-by-clause review?
Senator Day: Mr. Chairman, we received the notice of going to clause-by-clause consideration. I agree to proceed, but it is like so many things happening in the Senate these days where we ignore our own traditions. My understanding is we would not proceed with clause-by-clause consideration the same day we had witnesses. It is a typical way we would do this. Exceptions are made all the time, however, it is important to recognize in the normal case we would not proceed with clause-by-clause consideration at this time, but the committee is in agreement and proper notice has been given.
The Chairman: I do not really see how any party would be prejudiced if we do proceed.
Senator Day: I agree.
The Chairman: It could be argued there might be prejudice if we do not proceed and somehow there is a summer recess before this bill is passed.
Senator Nolin: At the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, usually we invite various officials to be present when we are going through clause by clause. That is how I perceived the invitation today.
Did anything arise during the hearings that need to be responded to by the officials who are promoting this legislation? That is how I perceive that.
Senator Day is right. Usually we finish hearings and then there is a full day of clause-by-clause consideration. This was raised two or three weeks ago.
The Chairman: We did not raise it.
Senator Nolin: Yes, and it was accepted that we will do both today.
Senator Day: Because it is one of our traditions, it is important to mention it, and I am agreeing we proceed with clause-by-clause consideration.
The Chairman: I am happy that was mentioned. That is fair and that is in part why I mentioned it at the last meeting. In checking with the clerk, apart from the FCM's suggestion for a preamble, which we are not suggesting, I do not believe there were any other specific amendments proposed by any witnesses — the now former Information Commissioner.
Senator Nolin: The institution still exists.
The Chairman: Mr. Leadbeater was the acting Information Commissioner, yes.
Senator Day: He did not like the creation of another, as he called it, exemption. However, that is why Mr. Stockwell Day's letter was circulated. There is a public interest override in any event under the Access to Information Act, so we are okay on that I think.
The Chairman: Senator Andreychuk, were you trying to get my attention?
Senator Andreychuk: No, I think it was said. If we had a witness here today that my chief complaint when we had gone off the rule is when we have witnesses who are either in opposition to the bill or have something to add by way of amendment, then I think it is our duty to reflect on it and not just act immediately and, in essence, discount them. In this case that is not happening.
The Chairman: Is it agreed, honourable senators, that the committee move to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-12?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Shall the title stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Shall clause 1, which is the short title, stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Shall clause 2 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Shall clause 3 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Shall clause 4 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Shall clause 5 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Shall clause 6 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Shall clause 7 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Shall clause 8 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Shall clause 9 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Shall clause 10 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Shall clause 11 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Shall clause 12 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Shall clause 13 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Shall clause 14 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Shall clause 1 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Shall the title carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Is it agreed that this bill be adopted without amendment?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Does the committee wish to consider appending observations to the report?
Senator Nolin: Just to cover those rough edges with the municipalities.
The Chairman: Is it agreed that I report this bill to the Senate?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Shall the meeting of this committee now stand adjourned until the further call of the chair, which will probably be in the fall when we get the government's response to what the Supreme Court had to say in February?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The committee adjourned.